School Board Meeting: 13 Feb 2018

The entire meeting can be viewed HERE, but you can fast forward to the public comments which is what this post is about. This is my commentary on the citizen speakers’ commentary.

One of the earliest speakers’ message was rather incoherent, but she touted the “people should be free to love who they love” argument or something along those lines.

But sexuality is not about love. I really wish people would stop equating sexuality with love. They are not the same thing at all. Sexuality is the aspect of a person that involves sexual thoughts and feelings, including what a person finds to be erotic in other people or even in themselves. Love is a self-sacrificing act of will. Agape. Caritas. Charity. Brotherhood of humanity.

The lady was very upset that a Virginia delegate said it would be a bad thing for a transgender teacher to teach a kindergarten class because being transgender is a mental disorder.

She called this “misinformation” and “hate.”

Something tells me, though, that she believes transgender treatments like hormone therapy and genital surgery and breast surgery should be covered under health insurance as a necessary medical treatment for the psychological disorder of gender dysphoria. For if being transgender is not a disorder, then such treatments are clearly elective and should not be covered under health insurance programs any more than any other cosmetic elective surgery would be.

You can’t have it both ways.

Either being transgender is a disorder requiring transition as a treatment, or it is not a disorder and everything the person does is a CHOICE.

Pick one, people.

Another speaker said that LGBT teachers should have the right to bring their partners to school functions as straight teachers do. I don’t remember ever seeing my kids’ teachers (or my own teachers when I attended school) bringing partners or spouses to school functions, but maybe I never noticed. It’s not like teachers were engaging in public displays of affection that would indicate that the person sitting next to them on the bleachers was a sexual partner.

Another man said that straight teachers have no problem talking about their spouses and kids at school, but gay teachers cannot do so without fear of retribution. He said that as a gay man, he wishes that there were openly gay teachers while he was in school. Apparently he had to figure out how to be a gay man through trial and error whereas if there had been an openly gay teacher he would not have made so many mistakes because he would have received guidance. What kind of guidance is never explained.

One high school girl described a transgender teen at her school who is going through transition and feels unsafe because when “he” (?) walks down the halls, he gets mean looks and no one wants to touch him. She said that there needs to be more protection.

What it sounds like to me is that LGBT students are not under any disproportionate threat of violence compared to other students, but rather that they feel like outcasts because of how other students react to their self-expression, appearance and behavior.

A self-described “pansexual” high school girl complained that the school board “does nothing for us” and offers no protection. She said that gay boys should be able to hug and kiss their boyfriends in the school hallways. She said that they don’t because they are afraid to be judged.

Which I took to mean that if someone were to express disgust or displeasure at same-sex public displays of sexual affection, she would want that person to be punished.

The girl said “I can’t even say that I am pansexual because who knows what somebody else might say?” Except she just did. At a publicized school board meeting where the public comment period is streamed online for everyone to see.

There was only one speaker who spoke out against changing the LCPS policy regarding sexuality and gender identity. Here is his statement in its entirety:

Good evening. There are some who would like to change the LCPS 7014 employment policy and/or students rights and responsibilities to include more specific language. It is felt current language may allow for discrimination, harassment, bullying of some specific groups not listed.

Absolutely none should suffer harassment or discrimination. We should all respect one another. We cannot make others accept choices others make, but we can teach as parents, guardians, educators, employers, leaders to respect people’s choices. This Thursday you’re all sponsoring a training on this topic. No one wants to be harassed, but unfortunately there are those who enjoy harassing others. Even though there are laws and rules, they will be broken–just look at the news today.

We commend your wisdom to keep your policies and rules all-inclusive with generalized format as tomorrow will bring new groups. Other boards, cities, and states have added such language and will have to keep adding more in due time. It’s like stating, “You can’t steal oranges and apples, so it’s okay to steal bananas?” But stating “Do not steal” includes not just fruit but everything else. Keep it simple will keep its strength timeless and inclusive. Another example: in the Bible, Christ states, “That whoever believes in me will not perish but have everlasting life.” “Whoever” is a general term, a term to be all-inclusive. It does not say only a certain color of skin, hair, culture, race, sexual identity, ethnicity, lifestyle–just simply “whoever.” All inclusive. Timeless.

Policy 7014 unfortunately has thirteen characteristics in addition to and any other characteristic provided by law. This includes sexual identity, but since it’s not specifically listed is why the pressure to add specific verbiage. If the policy did not list thirteen specifics, it would not be an issue. The policy should read: “The purpose of this policy is to establish methods for resolving complaints arising from alleged harassment or discrimination in any form.” Period. That’s it. No specific language is required for specific groups, race, sexual identity, ethnicity, and on.”